GURCHARAN DASS Vs. RAMA KANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT revision petition is directed against the order passed by trial court whereby application for amendment moved by petitioner has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that certain averments could not be incorporated in the written statement inadvertently. Thus, application for amending the same was moved. Trial court has gravely erred in dismissing the application. He has placed reliance on judgment reported as Abdul Rehman & anr. vs. Mohd. Ruldu & ors. : 2012(4) RCR (Civil) 481.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that suit for possession of a shop was filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff sought ejectment of petitioner inter alia on the grounds that he required the shop for personal use and occupation, for non -payment of rent and term of tenancy had expired. Defendant filed written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. Parties, thereafter, led evidence. As the suit neared its culmination, instant application was moved by defendant -petitioner for amendment of written statement. Plea has been rejected by the court below observing that proceedings were at their fag end. In the eventuality, material amendment in written statement was allowed, it would lead to de -novo trial. I find no legal infirmity with the order. Admittedly, the case is at the stage of rebuttal evidence, if any and arguments. It appears that defendant -petitioner has sought amendment merely to delay the proceedings. Besides, trial has not only commenced but is nearing culmination. Thus, proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 would be attracted. The judgment in Abdul Rehman case (supra), therefore, cannot help the case of the petitioner. Revision petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.